Well I don't see any shortcomings of Freeswitch as it is implemented in sipXecs. In sipXecs, freeswitch is only used for media services. The SBC functionality is provided by a service called sipXbridge which is not built on freeswitch.
Mike On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Dave Redmore < dave.redm...@spigotnetworks.com> wrote: > What, specifically, do you see as the shortcomings of Freeswitch, as > implemented in sipX, as an SBC? > > I'm just curious. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Picher" <mpic...@ezuce.com> > To: "Discussion list for users of sipXecs software" < > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org> > Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:18:55 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication > > Ok, so that's like 2 year ago software... so much has been done to the > system since then... Plus, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if > you're really serious about SIP trunks and you have a system of any size, > look to a real Session Border Controller like an Ingate or an Acme. People > will spend the money for a gateway but not for a proper SBC... > > Thanks for sticking around the list though, sounds like that was a bad > situation. Hopefully you've landed in a better spot. > > Mike > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Gerald Harper <ger...@sustaa.com> wrote: > >> Sorry for jumping into a thread when I had no business, but sometimes >> there are a lot of condescending attitudes on this list. >> >> As for the issue I had: >> We had installed 4 Nortel SCS systems for a customer, 3 had analog lines >> (Audiocodes GW) and the main system was PRI, (also Audiocodes) each was >> also feed with SIP trunks (SIPerator) from a local ITSP that Nortel >> recommended. The issue we had involved calls being dropped (or lost in >> space) anytime a transfer happened. We opened tickets with Nortel, who in >> turn would post here looking for help, (this was nearing the final days for >> Nortel and I guess all the good engineers had moved on) but no solution was >> ever found. >> >> Eventually the customer had the systems removed and replaced with Nortel >> mICS, (they lost a lot of features but could at least transfer calls) sued >> the company I worked for who ended up loosing about $100,000 on the deal. >> Not to mention the hours and hours they paid me trying to collect logs and >> other info to give to Nortel. Shortly after that they decided that since I >> was in on the original decision to recommend the SCS product it would be >> better for me to move on as well. >> >> This is why a jira was never opened. >> >> >> On 12/30/2011 4:17 AM, Michael Picher wrote: >> >> VPRI is just a marketing-guy term for a SIP Trunk.... That's all. >> >> I too would love to see a Jira on that dropped call issue, I don't >> recall this one nor do we have any customers screaming about this. >> >> As far as an open source mailing list, it is what it is... That's what >> we have pay-for support for ;-) >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >> >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Todd Hodgen <thod...@frontier.com>wrote: >> >>> Mike, contrary to what you say here, I specifically am not sure what a >>> VPRI >>> is, and yes, after your sigh response, I Googled it and tried to find a >>> definition of what it was exactly. >>> >>> With a telco background, PRI is very specific to me. VPRI could be one >>> of >>> many things, and I really was asking what it was in the frame of your >>> questions. It wasn't meant to be condescending, and if it was, I >>> apologize. >>> >>> VPRI has nothing to do with me, and apparently is not something that >>> anyone >>> knows anything about, except the company marketing with that name, so I >>> will >>> not respond further on this thread. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >>> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of >>> m...@grounded.net >>> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 8:13 PM >>> To: sipx-users >>> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication >>> >>> > Sigh what? Mike, read about PRI - >>> >>> Sigh... because you took the time to agree with Tony, giving me grief >>> while >>> at the same time pointing out that you were not doing that. Of course you >>> were. Since Tony had already made his point, why did you need to bring >>> it up >>> again? >>> >>> You then post a separate reply to the original question when just before >>> that, you told me you didn't know what I was talking about. >>> >>> Sigh because as soon as I point out the obvious such as I am now having >>> to >>> do, a few of you must at all costs have fun with this, turning the >>> persons >>> post into garbage making points like 'we need to understand'. Does >>> someone >>> else feel the need still? >>> >>> Of course you know what I was asking about, I've seen plenty of people >>> talking about virtual PRI's. Who the heck would not know that a VPRI >>> might >>> simply be an abbreviation. Doesn't seem to be at the moment but give it >>> time >>> maybe :). >>> >>> Bottom line is that there are a few old timers on this list that seem to >>> feel the need to be hard nosed to people. Why? Maybe a few of the users >>> are >>> simply too freaking serious for no good reason. Give it a rest. There is >>> no >>> reason to be like that with ANYONE on this list. >>> No one makes you reply to anything, you don't have to. If you don't like >>> how >>> someone posts something, it's not your place to be the teacher or know it >>> all and tell them how they need to learn everything about VoIP before >>> ever >>> taking the chance of using the wrong term while asking a question. God >>> forbid! >>> >>> >That's all I'm saying, and I think that is what Tony was asking - what >>> >is it exactly. >>> >>> A virtual PRI is really just a billing method for a SIP trunk. Figured >>> pretty much anyone on this list would know that. >>> The question really was, how do I set up sipx so that I can use IP >>> authentication to the ITSP over user/password. >>> >>> Anyways, moving on... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >>> > [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of >>> > m...@grounded.net >>> > Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 7:08 PM >>> > To: sipx-users >>> > Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication >>> > >>> > <sigh> >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 18:55:11 -0800, Todd Hodgen wrote: >>> >> Yes, but what is a virtual PRI? Since PRI is an ISDN standard, what >>> is >>> > the >>> >> non-standard derivative that comes out of a Virtual PRI? What is it >>> >> exactly? >>> >> >>> >> Is it maybe a PRI that is fed out of device that is actually fed via >>> a T1 >>> >> with SIP trunks on it? If it is, its still a PRI, conforming to the >>> PRI >>> >> standards, as it should. >>> >> >>> >> I believe what you are referring to is some companies marketing name >>> >> they use for a service they provide. I don't think anyone is giving >>> >> you grief, we just have no idea what you are talking about since we >>> >> haven't had the pleasure of reading the material you have, and really >>> >> haven't a clue what this VPRI is. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >>> >> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of >>> >> m...@grounded.net >>> >> Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:02 PM >>> >> To: sipx-users >>> >> Subject: Re: [sipx-users] flowroute VPRI IP authentication >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:20:57 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: >>> >>> I dont know VPRI means. If you use terms noone but you might >>> >>> understand you might explain it a bit. Throwing that aside... >>> >>> >>> >> When I don't use the right terms, I get grief and when I use the >>> >> terms I'm seeing in docs, I still get grief :). >>> >> I would have called it Virtual PRI but flowroute itself seems to call >>> >> it VPRI for short. >>> >> >>> >>> flowroute is a two-edged sword: Use the bandwidth.com template and >>> >>> change the bandwidth.com gateway stuff to your flowroute gateway. >>> >>> make sure flowroute is swet to send to your ip address and port 5080. >>> >>> Very >>> >> simple. >>> >> >>> >> I'll take a look at this. >>> >> >>> >>> If you use dual wan with flowroute you may have issues if you route >>> >>> netblocks or providers via specific wan ports. >>> >>> >>> >> Flowroute will be the only gateway these sipx servers will know and >>> have. >>> >> >>> >>> flowroute does not control >>> >>> the majority of their network and hence, RTP does not come from the >>> >>> same IP as the gateway. You pretty much have to open everything to >>> >>> use flowroute if you had been in locked down mode. >>> >>> >>> >> I didn't know this about them and to date, have always used an IP >>> >> allow rule for them. >>> >> Guess I've been lucky, haven't heard of any missed calls. >>> >> >>> >> These servers won't have any remote users but I wanted to have a bit >>> >> of security in place so figured I would block all but >>> >> sip.flowroute.com. Now I seem to have a new problem. >>> >> >>> >> Mike >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 5:10 PM, m...@grounded.net >>> >>> <m...@grounded.net> >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I need to install 4 separate sipx systems in four separate >>> locations. >>> >>>> No interoffice communications. >>> >>> All of the sipx systems could benefit from the use of a VPRI rather >>> >>> than traditional. >>> >>> >>> >>> I use ITSP's for individual lines when we need an area code that our >>> >>> local telco cannot handle. >>> >>> On sipx, I usually just create an ITSP device in the gateway >>> >>> section and let it authenticate via user name/password. >>> >>> >>> >>> In this case, due to the number of lines per server (4 to 8), it >>> >>> doesn't seem like a good idea to authenticate each and every DID >>> >>> individually for example and would prefer using an IP based >>> >>> authentication for the whole server. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I'll be using flowroute for the systems but am not sure how to >>> >>>> configure sipx to authenticate once based on IP over a user >>> >>>> name/password. I don't see anything which would allow me to do this >>> >>>> in the Gateway configuration section. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Can someone shed some light on this please. >>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks very much. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> sipx-users mailing list >>> >>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >>> >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> sipx-users mailing list >>> >> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >>> >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > sipx-users mailing list >>> > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >>> > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipx-users mailing list >>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipx-users mailing list >>> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services >> eZuce, Inc. >> >> 300 Brickstone Square >> >> Suite 201 >> >> Andover, MA. 01810 >> O.978-296-1005 X2015 >> M.207-956-0262 >> @mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher> >> www.ezuce.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing listsipx-us...@list.sipfoundry.org >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >> >> >> sustaa Long Distance >> The Cheapest way to call Anywhere! >> Call 778-383-2374 for more information about our incredibly low rates! >> Canada - 0.9¢, USA - 1.9¢, India - 1.5¢ per minute! >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing list >> sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ >> > > > > -- > Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services > eZuce, Inc. > > 300 Brickstone Square**** > > Suite 201**** > > Andover, MA. 01810 > O.978-296-1005 X2015 > M.207-956-0262 > @mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher> > www.ezuce.com > > > _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: > http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > > _______________________________________________ > sipx-users mailing list > sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/ > -- Michael Picher, Director of Technical Services eZuce, Inc. 300 Brickstone Square**** Suite 201**** Andover, MA. 01810 O.978-296-1005 X2015 M.207-956-0262 @mpicher <http://twitter.com/mpicher> www.ezuce.com
_______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
